For months there were some who thought the legal fight over landfills in the town of Carroll were over.

Not so much.

A ream of paperwork was introduced in state Supreme Court this week. Attorneys representing Carol Jones, executor of the estate of Donald Jones, Jones Carroll Inc. and Sealand Waste are asking Justice Grace Hanlon to declare that the 2007 law limiting landfills in the town of Carroll is an unconstitutional taking of the Jones’ property – which would mean the town should reach a financial settlement with the Jones family and Sealand Waste. Attorneys representing the town of Carroll are asking Hanlon to dismiss the claim and bring to an end nearly two decades of lawsuits over the Jones-Carroll landfill.

Attorneys on behalf of the Jones family and Sealand Waste say land at 309 Dodge Road, Carroll, was to be used for an expansion of the Jones-Carroll landfill as authorized by a 1989 Use Variance that was confirmed in 2010 by the state Court of Appeals. Expansion was eventually halted for good when, in 2022, the state Supreme Court upheld a 2007 Carroll law that prevented an expansion of the landfill. Daniel Bree, sole member of Sealand Waste, wrote in an affidavit submitted this week that the expansion of the Jones-Carroll landfill was projected to generate about $30 million to $40 million in profits at current tipping fees.

“However, since after a trial held in 2022, this court upheld the validity of Local Law No. 1 of 2007 of the town, and the appellate courts have not disturbed that ruling, Sealand and the Joneses cannot proceed with the expansion,” Bree wrote. “The 2007 law constitutes a regulatory taking of the Joneses’ rights to their property, including the use variance, and has taken the right of the Joneses to develop the expansion, which they planned to undertake with Sealand’s assistance.”

A regulatory taking can occur when a government regulation deprives an owner of all economically viable use or enjoyment of their property and requires compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Courts consider economic impact, investment-backed expectations and the character of the government action when ruling on regulatory taking cases.

The Joneses and Sealand Waste filed several affidavits in court that essentially arguing the Dodge Road property is only suitable for use as a landfill and has no value as the site of a housing development, that the 2007 town law affects only one property in the town – the existing landfill property – and is a taking of the use variance that would have allowed expansion of the existing landfill. Attorney Alan Knauf argues on behalf of Sealand Waste and the Jones family that the use variance is a tacit agreement that the Jones family couldn’t realize a reasonable return on the property if it followed the town’s zoning laws and that the town’s arguments against a landfill expansion also limit any potential future use of the site that relies on water because of the existing landfill on the site.

“Doing so would be fundamentally at odds with their ‘so-called’ findings set out in the 2007 law,” Knauf wrote in his affidavit. “Further, since there is a taking if a ‘bare residue’ of value remains, even if the property was worth $25,000, that is only a bare residue of the tens of millions of profits that would have been reaped from the expansion.”

Attorney Jeffrey Stravino of Hodgson Russ LLP in Buffalo argues on the town’s behalf that Hanlon should dismiss the Jones family and Sealand Waste’s motion for partial summary judgement of a regulatory taking. He argues in his affidavit that the Jones family and landfill officials haven’t shown that the economic impact of the 2007 law means the Dodge Road property can’t produce a reasonable return and that the character of the town’s 2007 town law doesn’t advance a legitimate interest. Stravino argues the language of the use variance standard is different than that of a takings clause standard and that the use variance was granted at a time when certain uses that are allowed in 2025 weren’t contemplated in 1989.

“In addition to their misguided use variance argument, plaintiffs’ motion conflates the property’s ‘most beneficial use’ with its ability to produce a reasonable return,” Stravino argued. “However, depriving a property of its ‘most beneficial use’ is insufficient to establish an unconstitutional regulatory taking. To prevail on the economic impact factor, the plaintiffs must show that the 2007 law causes ‘ a loss in value which is one step short of complete,’ not just a ‘mere diminution’ or a substantial reduction in property value.'”

Stravino also argues that the property’s decrease in value was caused in part by the Jones family, who filed court actions in March 2009 to lower the property assessment on the property from $100,000 to $25,000, while the landfill operated after the 2007 town law until it was closed when the DEC determined the landfill was full.

Stravino also argues the regulatory taking claim should fail because the 2007 law has been deemed a valid exercise of the town’s authority to regulate landfills within the town.

“Plaintiffs’ tireless and meritless crusade against the 2007 law must come to an end,” Stravino wrote. “As with plaintiffs’ other challenges to the 2007 law, plaintiffs fail to meet their burden for their final legal challenge alleging an unconstitutional taking.”